Get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AFDC, the FTC, FDA, probably halve or so the EPA to restrict it to solely things that can't be dealt with in a proprietary model (atmosphere motly), boom, you have a surplus.

Start switching in user fees and switching out taxes after the user fees you have prove their worth and you also have liberty when you're finished, but that's off topic.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Private debt is positive occasionally, because it starts new things. If your government is established, it should be able to pay its own way. The only time a government debt is even mildly acceptable is after a revolution, and it had better have a plan for getting rid of it.

I don't much trust established corporations if they have debt and haven't started a new business model recently either, but that's their problem, a government is everyone's problem.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

I don't know how that could be a reason for spending more. That's simply an interest rate, which provides incentives to make risky loans (if it reaches 0%).

This would be solved by Ending the Fed. Not by pumping money into the economy. I've never heard the above reason as a reason for deficit spending, anyway. The Fed sets interest rates low when they want lending to increase.

At 3/12/2010 4:29:20 PM, Nags wrote:I really want the economy to enter another great depression by my refusal to use either monetary or fiscal policy to better an economy when it's proven that both when exercised properly have the potential to make recessions less lengthy. We should support Ron Paul's lack of education instead of adopting logical positions that have been proven in basic economics. CUZ GOVNMENT IS EVIL

70% of the economy is consumer spending. If consumers don't spend, they save. If this happens you have 0 sales. If you have 0 sales you have layoffs which leads to less spending.

You need something to break the chain. So government steals their money and spends it for them (fiscal policy) and they drop the OLR to 0% and keep inflation at 3% so there is no incentive to save, thus they spend (monetary policy).

Advocating that they do neither is frankly one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard of.

At 3/12/2010 4:29:20 PM, Nags wrote:I really want the economy to enter another great depression by my refusal to use either monetary or fiscal policy to better an economy when it's proven that both when exercised properly have the potential to make recessions less lengthy. We should support Ron Paul's lack of education instead of adopting logical positions that have been proven in basic economics. CUZ GOVNMENT IS EVIL

Count me out

Dude, I can't take you seriously if you are just going to do this. That's now what I said, at all.

Spending $10 trillion dollars could immediately get us out of a recession, yes that much is self-evident. However, there are long-term ramifications to this, even right after getting out of the recession. The government can't fix the malinvestments by propping them back up, the market has to correct itself. If the government just spends and taxes to get us out of a recession (like Hoover, FDR, Bush, and Obama did) then we're just going to end up with an artificial economy held up by government money taxed from the people. It just assures that a larger, deeper recession will later take place. Harding did absolutely nothing during the Depression of 1921 (which was worse than the first year of the Great Depression) and the economy corrected in about a year.

At 3/12/2010 4:43:17 PM, Nags wrote:Dude, I can't take you seriously if you are just going to do this. That's now what I said, at all.

essentially it is.

Spending $10 trillion dollars could immediately get us out of a recession, yes that much is self-evident.

Good.

However, there are long-term ramifications to this, even right after getting out of the recession. The government can't fix the malinvestments by propping them back up, the market has to correct itself.

I agree, I'm not advocating that government prop up bad investments.

Let bad businesses fail. Spend society's money on things that benefit them most and have the highest spending multiplier possible.

If the government just spends and taxes to get us out of a recession (like Hoover, FDR, Bush, and Obama did)

Incorrect, I never said tax, I said spend, thus running up a debt and I only advocated fiscal policy after monetary policy has been exhausted.

then we're just going to end up with an artificial economy held up by government money taxed from the people.

You fail to realize that once people have even temporary jobs, they will spend at a much faster pace than when they are unemployed thus creating real non-propped up jobs which stabilizes an economy. People will quit temporary jobs and begin being employed in real jobs.

It just assures that a larger, deeper recession will later take place.

Incorrect.

Harding did absolutely nothing during the Depression of 1921 (which was worse than the first year of the Great Depression) and the economy corrected in about a year.

LOL look up the definition of depression vs recession.

Clearly this never became a depression because successful monetary and fiscal policy were properly employed.

During the Great Depression they were deployed oppositely (interest rate was raised, government spending was cut) during the second depression nothing was done. During the third depression (current) which never even became a depression, proper fiscal and monetary policy was applied. How can't you see this?

At 3/12/2010 4:41:18 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:Incorrect, you're looking from a borrowing side, not a spending side.

There is no spending side in lending and borrowing.

ITS NOT IN "lending and borrowing" its in an INTEREST RATE. In an INTEREST RATE there are two sides. Saving and Spending/borrowing.

LAWRD.

Yes it gives incentives to take loans. HOWEVER it also gives NO incentive to save which can kill economies during a recession.

How does spending give the incentive to save?

IT DOESNT. A LOWER INTEREST RATE gives NO incentive to save thus an incentive to spend.

Disbanding the capital gains tax would give the incentive to save.

INCORRECT. Less taxes do not dictate ones incentive to spend vs save it just dictates the amount they have to spend/save.

If a persons incentive to spend/save is spend 50% and save 50% giving them 100 more dollars do to less taxes does NOT change that ratio it simply mean that 50 more dollars will be spent and 50 more dollars will be saved.

If you keep that tax money and spend all of it then you have 100 dollars spent vs 50 dollars spent.

I realize this crowds out private investment. This is why I advocate it be done as a last resort to monetary policy.

First, that's not the rule, as you can see from other recessions. Second, the PSAVERT is not real savings, it's misleading.

It absolutely is a rule. It happened and it generally does when people lose their jobs. You don't spend the same ratio that you did while you were employed vs when you're unemployed. If you're unemployed you're pinching every penny, you're not going out to eat, etc.

This is a reason for saving more, not spending more.

Yes I agree but not IN A RECESSION.

70% of the economy should not be consumer spending, it should be much less.

Lol what it should all be from the trade ratio? LRN2 GDP.

Besides, saving does just as much good for the economy as spending.

I completely agree, however NOT IN A RECESSION.

This. Is just dumb. Since when can the government allocate money better than the free market?

They can't allocate it better, however they can spend it better. As long as its going into the economy its way way more beneficial than being saved. Again this is why I advocate fiscal policy as a last resort to monetary policy.

All spending and not saving is ridiculous. It absolutely destroys the economy in the long term.

IN THE LONG TERM, NOT IN A RECESSION WHERE FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY ARE APPLIED.

Let bad businesses fail. Spend society's money on things that benefit them most and have the highest spending multiplier possible.

What do you suggest spending on?

Incorrect, I never said tax, I said spend, thus running up a debt and I only advocated fiscal policy after monetary policy has been exhausted.

40% of the budget is already borrowed, you wouldn't be able to spend that much more without taxing -- unless you want to go into bankruptcy.

You fail to realize that once people have even temporary jobs, they will spend at a much faster pace than when they are unemployed thus creating real non-propped up jobs which stabilizes an economy. People will quit temporary jobs and begin being employed in real jobs.

The temporary jobs are created by diverting capital from the private sector to the public sector, which just means that the private sector has less money to hire or produce. Once again, spending isn't always good, saving is what makes the economy run.

It just assures that a larger, deeper recession will later take place.

Incorrect.

Haha, you wish.

Harding did absolutely nothing during the Depression of 1921 (which was worse than the first year of the Great Depression) and the economy corrected in about a year.

LOL look up the definition of depression vs recession.

A depression is just a deeper recession. Regardless, my point stands.

Clearly this never became a depression because successful monetary and fiscal policy were properly employed.

During the Great Depression they were deployed oppositely (interest rate was raised, government spending was cut) during the second depression nothing was done.

Umm, what? During the Great Depression government spending increased the most ever in history. Both Hoover and FDR spent more than any other President before them. Public works galore. Debt became 100% of GDP. By the way, the interest rate needed to be raised because it was near zero during the roaring twenties, which were the cause of the risky loans and artificial wealth.

During the third depression (current) which never even became a depression, proper fiscal and monetary policy was applied. How can't you see this?

We'll see a depression within the next ten years or so. The government can't correct something by propping up bad investments, which is exactly what they're doing. The market was never allowed to correct. The bottom will fall out within the decade. You're deluded and Keynesian if you believe correct monetary and fiscal policy was used now. Bush and Obama should have done nothing, like Harding did.

At 3/12/2010 5:08:46 PM, Nags wrote:I have no real argument to Askbob's superior knowledge that is in line with most mainstream opinions who understand economics. I haven't taken basic economics so I'm furiously looking all of these new terms up on wikipedia and using a failed economic policy that caused a depression worse than the great depression that was employed by a failed president which is in line with Ron Paul's ridiculous idea of eliminating both monetary and fiscal policy and doing nothing to rebut his argument.

At 3/12/2010 5:06:19 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:ITS NOT IN "lending and borrowing" its in an INTEREST RATE. In an INTEREST RATE there are two sides. Saving and Spending/borrowing.

LAWRD.

Are you retarded? An interest rate is strictly between a lender and a borrower. There is no saving or spending. See: http://en.wikipedia.org.... "An interest rate is the price a borrower pays for the use of money they borrow from a lender, for instance a small company might borrow capital from a bank to buy new assets for their business, and the return a lender receives for deferring the use of funds, by lending it to the borrower."

IT DOESNT. A LOWER INTEREST RATE gives NO incentive to save thus an incentive to spend.

Umm, I'm beginning to see that you don't know what an interest rate is in terms of macroeconomics. When interest rates increase, investment decreases. Wiki [ibid]: "Broadly speaking, if interest rates increase across the board, then investment decreases, causing a fall in national income." That's not partisan or ideological, it's a simple fact.

INCORRECT. Less taxes do not dictate ones incentive to spend vs save it just dictates the amount they have to spend/save.

A capital gains tax is a tax on profits from investments. Disbanding the capital gains tax would provide incentives to save as you are allowed to keep more of what you make from investments. That statement is one of the most ignorant I've ever seen out of you, even Keynesians would disagree with you there.

If a persons incentive to spend/save is spend 50% and save 50% giving them 100 more dollars do to less taxes does NOT change that ratio it simply mean that 50 more dollars will be spent and 50 more dollars will be saved.

If you keep that tax money and spend all of it then you have 100 dollars spent vs 50 dollars spent.

Ok. I take it you have no idea what a capital gains tax is, then.

I realize this crowds out private investment. This is why I advocate it be done as a last resort to monetary policy.

Lol... ok.

It absolutely is a rule. It happened and it generally does when people lose their jobs. You don't spend the same ratio that you did while you were employed vs when you're unemployed. If you're unemployed you're pinching every penny, you're not going out to eat, etc.

Yea, obviously. That would mean saving goes down. (Saving doesn't mean spending less or not spending by the way.)

Yes I agree but not IN A RECESSION.

Lol. The rules change?

70% of the economy should not be consumer spending, it should be much less.

Lol what it should all be from the trade ratio? LRN2 GDP.

Lmao. No...

I completely agree, however NOT IN A RECESSION.

The fundamentals of an economy don't change in recession versus not a recession.

They can't allocate it better, however they can spend it better. As long as its going into the economy its way way more beneficial than being saved. Again this is why I advocate fiscal policy as a last resort to monetary policy.

Once again, why the f*ck are you changing how an economy works in a recession versus not a recession? Besides, part of the reason we are in a recession is because we spent too much and don't save. Americans need to save.

IN THE LONG TERM, NOT IN A RECESSION WHERE FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY ARE APPLIED.

Fail. Economy doesn't change.

Ask Harding what happened when he did neither.

He'd say "a depression worse than the Great Depression"

He did nothing during the Depression of 1921. The Depression ended within a year.